tv The Permission Society CSPAN November 25, 2016 9:00pm-10:31pm EST
for for. further assistance in organizing the forum and those of us on c-span and in the audience as well. we are here to discuss an important subject, the permission society, the title of a new book by the goldwater institute tim sandefur, how the ruling class turns our freedoms and privileges and what we can do about it. this book documents the many ways especially since the progressive era that the presumption of liberty to the freedom of the heart of our founding principles and documents has been extinguished in favor of the presumption of government with individuals having to obtain permission from
the government officials before being able to act. before they can make any changes in the property they have a range of permits from the zoning board all the way up to the environmental protection agency and the u.s. army corps of engineers, the resulting often and extremely huge expenses and lengthy delays but it doesn't -- the speech starting and running the business. we will discuss the issue in some detail both pro and con. i will introduce each of the speakers before he speaks, starting with tim and we will talk for about 20 to 25 minutes and then have comments from our
two other guests for ten to 15 minutes each and then a brief comment from tim before we open up to q-and-a from you in the audience and then for the lunch upstairs in the george yager conference center. center. tim sandefur is the vice president for litigation at the goldwater institute in phoenix, arizona. as i write in the blurb for the buck, his fourth magnificent plus countless articles, speeches and legal briefs, tim sandefur has emerged as one of america's most important up and coming political and legal theorists. a graduate of hillsdale college, the chaplain university school of law, tim served for 15 years as a litigator at the pacific legal foundation before joining goldwater. at plfd he one of many states, some of which he will discuss today.
he is the author of four books, cornerstone of liberty, property rights in 21st century america co-authored with his lovely wife, christina, which came out earlier this year. the rights to earn a living, which came out in 2010; the conscience of a constitution in 2014; and now the permission society in some scholarly articles ranging from eminent domain for economic liberty and antitrust copyright slavery and the civil war and political issues in shakespeare, ancient greece and with a range of interests of those accomplishments at such an early age we are proud to have tim as an adjunct scholar. please welcome tim sandefur. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is an honor to be here. i see some friends out there including one of the
inspirations for the book. what came to mind in the conversations we were having is a passage from james madison, 1790 to sa charters. he starts out by saying in europe but charters and liberty have been granted by power. america set the example of the charters of power granted by liberty this revolution in the practice of the world made an honest praise be pronounced the most triumphant in its history and what's madison meant is that unlike the old documents of the english civil war of the glorious revolution, those documents all gave freedoms and purported to wear as the american revolution was founded on the opposite principle and their own agreements to the constitution and so forth. contrast this for instance for
the language of the magna carta. we celebrated the magna carta but it's a great document and all that, sure. when you actually read the document, it is surprising the language it uses. it says by the grace of god king of england to the loyal subjects to all men of the kingdom we have granted all the liberties written out below to have and to keep for them and us and our heirs. but the magna carta is very clear. i am giving you the following freedoms and it lists those freedoms. that's the opposite of the constitution that said all men are created equal. we give certain powers most of which are listed in article one of the constitution. what the founding fathers did is they reversed the older conception of freedom on the
basis of the basic principle enunciated by john locke. now this is important because what is freedom it is a person n too old to afford things really free. freedom is not as we are told for every man to do as he lives who can be freed when every man's humor might domine her over him but instead of the liberty to dispose the order as he lists the actions, processes and property within the allowance of those under which he is and they are not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another but to freely follow his own and not to have to ask permission from someone before using your property or whatever. subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else. now this is a revolutionary idea in the 1770s, because the
older model of freedom was the magna carta principle that we tend to call prior restraint. prior restraint was the rule that said you have to get the government's permission before you can publish something and this was overturned and it became the pride of the british subjects. they published the sentiments of. it couldn't be required to ask permission before uttering his views but the same principle applies across-the-board religion in particular is among that which i used in the buck under the british system if you read william blackstone in his commentaries, he's very proud of that british subjects enjoyed the religious toleration.
giving religious liberty to the toleration to the people the founders repudiated this concept. it's not the opposite of the toleration tha but the counterft of it. both are. the one assumes the right of withholding the liberty of conscience and the other of granting it. one is armed with fire and the other is granting or selling indulgences. jefferson says the same thing when he is talking about his proposal for what became the virginia statute for religious freedom. our rulers can only have the authority that we submitted to them. we are answerable for them for
god to which of them legitimate powers act as injurious to others. madison in his old age was very proud and wrote a little memoir where he told the story when he was young in his 20s he served on the committee that drafted the virginia declaration of rights and the primary figure on the committee was george mason, the respective older statesman and he wrote all people would enjoy the total toleration of religion and madison, the upstart jumps up and says no you can't use the word toleration you must use the word liberty and he persuaded him. he's very proud of that.
the founders here and elsewhere it was to embrace that we are all basically free, not that we are not free until the government gives it to us and that is reflected in the constitution which speaks of securing the blessings of liberty that says the rights shall not be a bridge that says no law respecting the freedom of speech or whatever shall be passed. and of course the ninth amendment which makes clear it's not exclusive just because it isn't listed in the right area doesn't mean you don't have that right. how have we come to the point where today you basically need to get the government's permission for a wide variety of the things you spend your daily life doing.
you need a permit to build a house, buy a gun, build things come around businesses, pay your ease, even the freedom of speech comes with some sort of a permit requirement. we have these colleges and the political free speech zones that are basically teaches you are allowed to express your opinion inside of the cage. you also find it in places you wouldn't expect. in the architectural design review, it occurs when an architect has planned out a single building or subdivision and he goes before the city's zoning board and the officials say the compliance as al is alle safety codes but i just don't like the way that it looks.
i would prefer that it be colonial or neocolonial or whatever other style that is designed in. in. a purely fopurely for the aesths i hope that architecture is a form of sculpture and artistic expression by a free speech in the same way other sculptors are protected as free speech. no one can walk through the building with a masterpiece in pasadena without experiencing the feelings. no one has been found with the guts to litigate that point. we are replacing the free society with the permission
society where you are not free unless the government gives you permission. now the models the lawyers used for this that i describe in the book is the difference between the nuisance system and the permit system. the new since the system is based on the classical legal principle something something something. i don't know that. and what that means is you have the right to use the property so long as you want as opposed to the permit system that says you are not allowed to do this unless the government allows you. now there are problems. one of them is that it's basically reactive. it allows people to commit harm and then you can sue them or get an injunction against them more or less after they committed the horrible or immediately before. the permit system is proactive if says no, no, you have to prove to us that you are
qualified. there are many more problems in the permit system in the nuisance system for rent seeking the phenomenon the government can hand out benefits to people. no government can possibly know all of the information necessary to run the entire economy. the example given nobody in the world knows how to build a pencil because you need graphite, would come in to get the work you have to have lumber. to get the lumber used to have lumber jacks and you have to feed them which means you have to have farms. a few steps along the reasoning and the entire economy is spent building a single pencil. but it's the process of the decision-making idecision-makinm that the permit system causes this problem. to take an example i litigated the case in kentucky.
not making this up about half the state in most major metropolitan areas it is called a certificate of public convenience and necessity law you have to prove there is the need for a new moving company in kentucky before they will give you a permit and in the existing moving company they can object and say there is no need and guess what, they often say that. we took the case to court and in the deposition i said how do you decide whether there is a public need for a future public need somewhere down the line and that's eurocrat said there is no objective criteria. there you go. there is another problem in the permit system.
one of them is that it violates the principle of the quality. who has to ask permission. an inferior has to ask permission of a superior. slaves have to ask permission, children have to ask permission. recently when men have to ask permission to own property, get jobs, sign contracts and so forth. to have to ask permission from someone else means appeasing the person rather than treat them as equal citizens or as government employees who stand beneath in that sense. it substitutes political for economic power.
to whose brother was on the committee or in exchange for a little something might be able to get you some time in front with a bureaucrat. that is another problem. it allows those in power to demand something in exchange for a permit to a. a. the supreme court said this is unconstitutional but the land-use officials continue to do it nevertheless. i saw a case several years ago my client was forced to give up his right to vote for a building permit. but the most offensive part of the permission system across the board is how it deters innovation.
it restricts the opportunities by existing. it doesn't have a lot of capital and comes up the grea with a grw idea and innovation and things this could really help people and they would be willing to pay if i could make money off this. then he thinks and all the permits he has to get and go through maybe even special lobbying to get a special law passed to exempt him from the bureaucratic regime and so forth it's just too much trouble. we can never assess the cost because it vaporizes instantly. it never comes into existence how much might have occurred, how many jobs that might have created and how much wealth might have created and how much other innovations would have come about because of his that vaporized in that instant. as the great poet saint of all sad words the saddest are these that might have been. we never know what might have been if it wasn't a government apparatus barring innovation to
bring proof to the government that there needs to be a new business of this kind in that area. now i've been a libertarian since i was in high school and i remember how often i would say something about freedom is good and the answer would come back yes but you also have to have responsibility and this is often the response i get when i talk about the problems in the permission systems that are supposed to impose the responsibility. the problem is the responsibility can take two different meanings. it can either mean don't hurt people, which is something something something as the nuisance principle or it can mean do what we say. that is the permit system. i think it is by and large the better way to approach social problems and that means presuming people free unless they are going to harm another person. i believe we are sliding more and more into a society that presumes you are on the free
unless as we move towards the permission society we are moving away from the principles of freedom upon which the constitution is based. they were looking for the right way to describe the ashes of europe and he found those words in the poem all we have freed him and all that we use or know this the fathers fought fo faths long and long ago noticed we leave to live by no man's underneath the law. the more we are required to ask someone for permission, the more the government presumes we are not free unless the government says we are the less freedom we have. there is no reason for it.
it is unjustified because we accept the idea that people are basically freed through most of their lives. why can't we trust our fellow citizens th with freedom and ife can't trust them who can we trust with? [applause] thank you very much, tim. you can purchase the book outside along with tim's other books so please feel free to do so and then while you were talking, the colleague sent an e-mail of just breaking news
that the circuit judge has struck the unchecked power of the consumer bureau director. to offer a different perspective perhaps we are going to hear from an old friend of the institute who's spoken here more than once, professor alan morrision, who is the lerner family associate dean for public interest in the public service at george washington university school of law. the litigation group that he cofounded in 1972 and directed for over 25 years. and thin the various areas inclg open government, opening up the legal profession agencies that
failed to comply with the law enforcing principles of the separation of powers and protecting the power of consumers and protecting underrepresented class members in class-action settlements. in the first amendment fortunately come and in the very famous case is struck down over 200 federal walls containing the legislative veto as a violation of the separation of powers. he's a member of the academy of
appellate lawyers and was the president in 1999 to 2000 and is a graduate of yale university harvard law school served as a commissioned officer in the u.s. navy and was the assistant u.s. attorney in new york please welcome alan morrision. [applause] our society is inverted and we need to permission instead of having the freedom to do what we want to do. no doubt in my mind that our mission is needed for many things in society but my reading of the book and knowledge in the society is that it is inverted. the book's title and as the book would suggest in terms of permission for freedom.
the proplural of anecdote isn'ta and i would start with a story of my own. i love the work crew word crewss not what they called it. it was very hot, and this lunchtime. i went below, got an ice cream and brought it back on deck. the person that outranks me, basically everybody, came up to me and said what are you doing with the ice cream. i said i'm eating it. he said to me who told you could eat ice cream here. i said nobody. nobody told me i couldn't. did anybody tell you you could, that was when i knew the difference between being in the navy and a civilian. civilian. in the navy i couldn't do anything unless somebody told me i could. so that is the true permission society that i had envisioned.
let me start with a couple areas of agreement with respect to licensing and the certificate of necessity. the first time i ever had a a matter in the cato institute was back when the cato institute was in a small town house on first street northeast. at the time i was representing a legal secretary being prosecuted by the florida state bar. we had some challenges and other activities and cato was in line with us. i have of cases involving the legal profession as you heard and many of them are successful but in the area of unauthorized practice of law i have been unsuccessful. i thought to try to bring cases to that area raising a first
amendment challenge. that was the first activity but it wasn't a winning argumen argf the sector will people were trying to regulate. i didn't believe that i still do not believe all licensing of four years ilawyers is a bad ids stressed they've gone too far in areas that only lawyers are allowed to provide the unnecessary services. the book talks about other licensing among them the tour guides have to be and its one thing to have the license to be able to identify them whether they have criminal activities. they brought the case involving the tour guide becaus because bd to take an examination of the 100 most important monuments in the city where they would be
misled. the case got to the dc circuit and it eventually got settled by the district but the rules still apply in louisiana and other places and could i envision some harm i suppose i could. there's several tests on page 213 needs to be a tough analysis on what we voted with the current laws already on the books. the trouble is if you ask the legislators are the regulators they would say they are already complying with them and we are
not regulating anything we are only doing really important things. my own view is the first amendment isn't the right way to go and is there a better way to approach the problem i suppose the federal trade commission could give the ability to preempt and i doubt that would be a popular solution here in this building but you have to decide which is worse. i encountered something the other day that we try to do in the projects including their ability to get the proper.
somebody in congress i don't know who it was thought that requirements that if in order to be able to assist, you have to be accredited and that is whether you are a lawyer or somebody else and if you are a lawyer not only do you have to apply for credit but you have to take the credit hours to help a veteran filed an application and nobody is allowed to do that unless they are accredited. i thought we were supposed to try to help our veterans and the danger of somebody not helping them out as opposed to doing it themselves is completely misplaced but this is in the statute because all the veterans organizations have to get their own persons accredited as well. the second area that he talked about is the book i fully
support in the necessity. i confess i haven't heard about the company problems before. the certificates of necessity that i heard about involved for example, the ability of the hospital to open a new place in town where they were seeking the funds to do so in that situation before the government spend money they have to decide whether it's necessary to do that wit are the same thing is . and thin the constitutional fres are the substantive due process. but the commerce clause ought to be the grounds for attack i don't know how many of you have heard the test of automobile company has had in trying to open up new markets.
it's whether we have the dealership in a state that provides the service and strikes me to being a violation of the commerce clause. it's to do business in the state and it doesn't help to consumers at all. there's nothing wrong with the market in automobiles. people will know about it and if they don't they will know about it also. tesla tried to work with them for a while and i saw the other day that they filed a lawsuit on the commerce clause grounds challenging the law as they probably should. when i saw the title to the book i thought this would be about the fda and the epa said there
was little and it is a recognition that in our permission society, the nuisance deer he only works so far. we need some kind of protections and tim disagrees i think the problem is one of the line drawing and how we decide and who is going to decide which areas and indeed need protection and found. the more i thought about it, the more the problem wasn't in the generality but in waiting out the specifics for the precautionary principle the book talks about. that is a notion that if we don't know about something new coming onto the market, and it has a potential for being dangerous, pesticides for example or new drugs to do their
work they must have side effects but the question is are they harmful side effects and does the drug do what it is intended to do. wait a second, if we are an offshore, we shouldn't allow something to go on the market or put it on with conditions including postmarketing surveillance. the question is are those positions sensible i like the quote and i've used it several times since then he was purported to have said if the captain of a vessel were solely concerned about the safety, he would never leave the port, and that is an interesting way of thinking about it.
the point you made earlier is we don't know what would happen if we don't let people go out to the sea. at the other hand, being at the port isn't as safe as being asking for or out perhaps even have to see if we have a hurricane instead of having your vessel smashed against the dock. sometimes it is better to take a risk. as i was worrying about the provision in the society, i thought about the recent phenomena of the driverless cars. should they have to get permits in order to be out and are we willing to allow the law of nuisance. they will be subject to having driverless cars or should there be some kind of restrictions permissions, authorizations, checks in advance. who should decide and what should they be.
what will we do about uber and air bnb. the workers that are subject to the conditions or should we say they are all right. we don't have to worry about them. in any event, what do we do about the customers? there was a piece about racial discrimination is it completely unregulated what do we do about that as well? the book contains early references for the decision in
lochner leaving aside the specifics of how the community got together and passed the law that was only applied to work for bankers. the bigger question is they don't like the economic regulation that has been passed by the regulators. my own view is the harms that come from excessive regulations are relatively modest and the danger of having the courts stepped in and review the substantive due process is greater harm but that's my view and i would be glad if everybody else in the room. i was rather surprised at who the enemy was in the book.
a two-way translators to be elected and appointed officials. are we better off or worse off with having democracy because that's what we are talking about there. to be our guide in this area is true in many areas where it is said with the regulatory and legislative capture and the book is clear however that does not occur in all of the situations. the question is how we try to deal with that and how we try to draw a better line as the book suggests it's not an opportunity to turn down a bad law but as the means of exposing the law that we have is a wonderful opportunity when the government has to answer your complaints he had to put on a live witness that will say under oath why
they are doing what they are doing and you get many answers that are essentially indefensible. so it's going to win some cases that is nice and important but also serves the function we are all entitled to the rational responses. it was a long time in this auditorium and we are going to hear from judge stephen williams who was appointed in june of 1986 and took the senior status in september 2001 and like dean morrison is a graduate of yale
college and he was engaged in private practice from 1962 to 1966 and became an assistant u.s. attorne attorney for the sn district of new york in 1966. as a professor of law at ucla university of chicago la chicagr the southern methodist university and the federal trade commission he's an expert on oil and gas law.
the creation, the book that we featured at the cato institute where it came out and the book that has been described by the former minister of russia igor as absolutely splendid. please welcome the absolutely splendid judge stephen williams. i don't think it is consistent with the norms of the aspects.
they say we are not supposed to speak about the specific policy issues that are likely to come out and so many of these potentially could, but i do think that what is useful for me to focus on is the fundamental question of how the permit system actually differs from the regulatory systems in which the government acts after the citizen has acted. at the very end of the book there is a brief section that enumerates what he thinks are distinctive drawbacks in the permit system.
a very important one i hasten to say except for one, they are ubiquitous across the regulatory systems. first, rent seeking. it is present even in the form of the after-the-fact regulation known as antitrust law which i think is the form of regulation that was found most accepted by the adherents of the markets. as we know for a long time to antitrust laws with the device by which people could take out their competitors ironically. kim identifies the knowledge
problem which to him is an implicit claim the government has better knowledge of the private citizens and i would say basically a lot of regulation that doesn't depend on that at all the regulation depending upon either the transaction costs are too high for the solution tthissolution to be woe property rights or the information of the drug issue being the clear case of those. in any event, it is equally present in the non- permit systems. both of the systems are vague. i would argue it is slightly less dangerous than the non-
permit system the government crashes down on you after you have committed resources and probably sen send you to jail ao forth. demanding the payoffs as the history of the public necessity where it counts man many episodf that but it seems to function in the non- permit systems. the example that comes to my mind most clearly is the situation where the government believes the bank has committed fraud and starts to investigate and of course the fact that the investigation clouds the bank's prospect and the indictment would be fatal but alone a
conviction. if the recent bank episode suggests that even rumors of an agreement on a settlement can be nearly fatal to a bank, so again the need for pay off which result from the department of justice and criminal pursuits as presence across the two systems now i come to the one that i think is the strongest and i will return to it again it's what he calls the double weightier effect and finds out where the citizen proceeds without a permit or in defiance of the limit she's going to lose even if the denial of the permit or its limitations were illegal so that is certainly a double effect.
associated with it that is in the permit system, the way that it operates against the citizen and in favor of the government has to wait until the government has finally pulled itself together to act. i want to focus on that some more later. let me take the other two objections that he poses in the stifling innovation and surely in the case after the fact regulation and antitrust is a good example. finally, the government has superior, while yes these are the systems involve involve the government exercising its coercive power, its monopoly on the use of force to compel citizens to stop giving or pay the fine for having done it.
in the d-day of the citizen actor i think the key problem there is that it means that the adverse effect of the regulatory system tends to be hidden. so compare the system of the regulation under which you have to get a permit to go into the business or you can be imprisoned by the government if you enter the business and the government finds that your activities have an adverse affect on the economic prosperity of those with whom you compete, imagine someone who would like to go into trucking,
he buys a truck starts providint providing services, maybe he starts to get pretty good at it and get a second truck, a third truck and has by this time quite a few customers, maybe a little reputation. at that point, the pre-existing competitors ask a government agency you hav to move against , he is violating the norm and they go after him. in the that context, the ability to get the result they like is going to be weaker than in the permit system because by this time, people know about it if he's done even a decent job and if he hasn't come the business will die on its own.
if he's done a decent job, people will be upset, they should be, and he has a far better chance of escaping the regulatory nemesis then he was under the permit system. alan brought up uber and one was speculative. uber by the time that i they bee controversial have a lot of customers who were, many of th them, members of the elite that has made it harder. the entitlements are jeopardized
by uber and they earn a weaker position than they would have before some agency regulating the services at the outset. the concept of the prior restraint comes from free speech and considering it i think you have the same situation if a person can publish first, there is a modicum of free speech in this hypothetical society. if you can publish first, then when the government goes after you, people will know what it is you were saying, and 95% of the time the government coming after you on the grounds of what you said is extraordinarily silly whereas if they cut it off any
program nobody essentially would know about it. i don't think that it would make any difference whether a permit system was used or just coming after you where it works exactly the same, but that is because there is no way in which the publications that didn't represent the party line could actually go ahead. basically it is one of strangling things in their cradle and in the book it brought to mind a favorite poem of mine that is all about people whose potential was never realized for some. it goes on and on in that vein,
and a trucker may not seem that when we recognize what is associated in general, we see the message is manifest and becomes important where the system is used. we should add one thing though. it seems clear in certain cases they can have a permit system for a lineup production of cars that you don't have to meet some criteria for emissions and so forth. you want to know before you spend $200 million on your production line that you're not
going to have trouble on the technology that you use on the car that you produce on the production line so that is at least and in stand where the permit system is to be added advantage. >> we should make it a rule that there are three poets quoted in every presentation. i only had a brief period so i want to say i think a lot of these comments are so intelligent and deep they would require a more thorough discussion. and actually i noticed the reference is that said the enemy
is democracy. i don't think that is quite accurate, but maybe you should consult my book the conscience of the constitution that discusses the dangers of democracies. the agencies that enforce these are the mos least democratic th. they are not staffed and most of them that you live your life imposed not by elected officials but the bureaucrats and administrative agencies that cannot even be fired because the government union members. the basic thesis of my book is the idea of the prior restraint should apply to all permit systems regardless of the subject. the court said i set in the 50st there's basically three rules when it is acceptable and that is there must be a time limit to be granted or denied. there must be unambiguous criteria for the granting of the denial like a good cause and
there should be the right to the judicial review if you are denying the permit, not some sort of review in the administrative hearing where the prosecutor is paying the judge. my argument is basically they should be applied across the board to all kinds of permits and licensing requirements. with regards to licensing, i directed this in my book right to earn a living, and i explained the first amendment isn't the best route to go that way the right is the due process and that doctrine which is the oldest and most important of all constitutional protections in the civilization has been largely undermined by the left and right. we have a solution in the book. one of them is the right to earn a living act which is legislation that would require that state courts to impose a higher level of review in the rational basis when it comes to the challenges of restrictions on economic liberty yet when i
addressed the tests that ought to be applied whether a permit is required or not the reason for that is being present under the national basis it is basically anything goes. if the government wants to impose the liberty and it's basically free to do so at will. the right to earn a living act would require them to ensure a day directly protect public safety and are no broader than necessary. when it comes to the fda the, te right to trial legislation that is now the wall and 32 states is a step towards rationalizing the currently irrational process of drug development and approval by the administration across the decade and a billion dollars to improve medicines that could save peoples lives. thpeople's lives. the right to earn a living act requires those that are terminally ill to use medicines improved for basic safety that are not yet fully approved by the fda.
as far as the certificate of need law i think it would resolve the problem and keep in mind though we are not talking about the intrastate certificate of need laws that were abolished in the 80s. it is intrastate and that can only be addressed by the legal reform or the courts taking seriously the protections of the amendment that prohibits them from arbitrarily denying people their economic liberty. i think justice williams has a good point that really the question is between reactive and proactive or between the prior restraint versus the punishment afterwards. it's true you would encounter a love of actions you would encounter in the prior restraint is also true in speech. ..
agree that there are cases, rare cases when it is appropriate but behalf to fall in those three criteria of a specific timeline clear criteria and judicial review if you are wrongly denied before they can even consider it appropriate. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> we will open to questions . please wait for the microphone to get to you.
>> i worked been the field of mental health and all the number of licenses to do that in local jurisdictions one of the things it is involved is a number prerequisites and it has been my belief that the prerequisite for the government in a phillip ability to get accurately measured if they should be allowed to practice i just wanted to comment on that. >> do argues psychologist licensing should be abolished across-the-board it is nothing more than a psychiatry which has medicine but it is a talking cure is a different than the discussion second one between not priest or myself the my mother people talk
about their problems if you look at that legal definition define these terms and are very broad like helping people with their human problems. holy cow. and the answer comes they may kill themselves but the same could also be said of conversation with my mother just kidding. [laughter] combat that is true and that is why they are riddled with exceptions are they don't apply to members of the of clergy primal licensed attorneys like tim practice psychology i guarantee i have no expertise. so i think those rules should be abolished so not only the standards reflect
that ability but it gives an opportunity for those who already have licenses and that is the real problem. >> >> i am attorney coming back to the psychologist is an insufficient to say you must have a master's degree or ph.d. as upper requisite that protect somebody who has that sort would not be there and second my and
standing as a number of states of psychologist have gotten the right to prescribe medicines so that begins to weaken the second part of your argument. >> pdf i would favor something that says you have to have the degree period over something more vague like prove that you are skilled or competent to salmon jury willing to except under the tent of the camel los soleil newspaper advice columnist was prosecuted for practicing without a license. i think goes without saying that the of licensing of the advice column is not compatible with the first amendment the first device
columnist was franklin he did not have a doctorate even though they called him dr. franklin he he made up the questions that would be eaten civil the then have a licensing requirement but the medicine rules are a form of permit requirement as a libertarian i and find -- i am fine with that but it needs to be an in ambiguous. >> ultimately the doctor won his case. >> the advice column with the special ethics i will use ann landers and vice call about giving legal and vice -- advice issue
practicing wall without a license clacks but there is that center around position of psychology. to have a certificate to have that criteria and you could practice anyway but it is the indication you are more qualified and there are private market of credit as. it was preferable and bad look them up if they say don't go there i got the stomach flu than they don't go but there is a rating system for the driver there really isn't given by any reagan tory energy.
but the playboy enterprises case looks to the availability of private market alternatives and if there were less restrictive means available but to push that point and it is broader than necessary. >> fat was frame rather than in commercial and it doesn't matter if you're giving out free of vice the same is true in medicine to your mother's exception and if your brother in law gives legal advice he is guilty of
practicing law without a license? to make yes. behalf to notify the authorities. >> this is the important point this legal doctrine of professional speech as they tell their clients more directly a doctrine that has not only ever bent discussed or endorsed by the supreme court never in a single majority opinion but lower courts have adopted the doctrine that a government official with no expertise at all is in the abettor position to tell a doctor ready can tell his patients than i am. that makes no sense whatsoever.
>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] >> if that is the message dave i am sorry because of course, that doctrine of human liberty are doc trendsetter always true for all people everywhere and i would be ashamed of myself if i said anything other than that. >> i want to underscore that this was his reference to magnate card that i thought
he slighted that because a purports to represent the continuation when of liberty's then when you see it inseams in effect to be something to natural law. so the source of these liberties is complicated. >> but in the case it was involving the licensor requirements of the city of london. >> i'm the great admirer of the greatest lawyer of all time but would he said i think is not really what magna carta says but he was such a great lawyer that even his mistakes are of common law. >> digest fund but you wrote a new book what is the
outcome that you found in your research? it is uh uh good theory but i am not clear how to implement that but getting permission is all about from your perspective summit that these this is we should not be required to ask permission in the first place. i found so many positive outcomes as i was putting together the examples level hard time finding negative big simples plan -- examples because the psychologist won his case because in his case the institute for justice those that will represent for free were willing to take on that case but we can never really know how many
people would have been scared away by a threatening letter by the kentucky department of licensing we don't know with empirical research. but i give positive examples out in the end people take on the system and one. that is my business so let's take it on and it is a real problem. >> in louisiana you have to have a license to be a forest and at that time you were greeted on the beauty of your floral designs. >> we have to protect customers were from a bad floral arrangement. >> he is not making that up. >> i am an endangered species as an entrepreneur
and professor it does seem that it was required public for the oil holy father and if so wasn't obtained the consequence could have been significant so with a little bit of latin comedy would agree the benefit costs is the way to go if regulation is desirable or not and done with the article to agencies? and done using the cost of capital is self regulating factor? of the risk of not getting permission up front and punish later then can they sell for regulate that? >>
>> good points. i can see how the cost of capital makes a permanent system is preferable in my example of the manufacturer. but i am not sure how it is self regulating in the sense of that cost of capital is brought to bear on the legislators with their deciding different approaches. >> the system has to be set up to allow that. >> and trying to dance your question i assure the vendors stood so did they take the stake cost into account in a proper way?
the answer is i think so. and data on north they have that properly the they have a judicial review m. political review. >> if you are not sure then how confident are you that the agency can take these into consideration? >> able or does or does properly? [laughter] >> i think some agencies are more willing than others. some of them are instructed to take safety into account or they may not depending on the situation. >> epa is notorious in that regard. >> would lead you take on the defense after they were expelled one for each in the
forbidden fruit spec times so glad to have that reference laugh laugh my favorite christian libertarian. no man would ever wish along there. but i think that is the best possible defense of adam and eve especially adam chooses to vp apple rather than live without her. >> of course, this snake needs representation. >> we only have one side of that story. he got the above rap. this is not the tempting but succumbing to the temptation >> that was free-speech spirit that is a lesson for corruption of political officials not attempting but the succumbing which many has done.
we have 18 and up all the way in the back. any others? >> i may high-school senior and if you could comment on the state's death free-speech you could be denied due process. >> have a section in the book where i make the analogy between the yes means yes law in california and permission society where you are presumed a rapist unless you can improve you got consent witches' a plain
violation. >> that is the origin of the of principles but just not only the arbitrary from our society but it is difficult to disprove so makes sense to put the defendant the burden of proof so that is the problem the with regard to use free speech i admit i am astonished by what is going on on the college campuses nowadays i did not see this coming. live amazed by the degree to which is seen as the schools are cracking down on unpopular thought. with a country that not only prides itself on freedom but to cherishing and protect
the principles of freedom we defended here or it is gone and if we don't then must tell our grandchildren what it was we found more precious than freedom. it is disgraceful we face a choice where even the most innocent remark for halloween costume can get people in serious trouble with universities that our government entities but i ate it escaped public colleges has no government funding hillsdale college in has restrictions on free-speech but if it is a shame and don't talk about it that parted great length in the book. >> with private schools there are contractual remedies by such organizations for individual rights in education and you
can go to my website to find too long speeches on the subject of free speech and academia he is right with is going on today it is very different in the '60s when the students were clamoring for free speech and berkeley california today they clamor for safety. >> again to be familiar with that excellent work that is the great fan of over many years. >> i have a question about the extent of powers without crossing the line asking for permission. the first is a registration requirement we don't ask permission you have to inform the government before new do it. the second is the
requirement to post a bond after words if you violated the rules there are some ways to punish someone who has no money. last comment encase let save the government allows you to ask if that would violate the law and finance. so where you do some of the same problems? >> but in terms of the degree he is. >> demos of the problems that they associate with the current system apply it
across the board. >> so the partial response under which you can be granted origin 94 to have something happen to you after with that difficulty he does not like good cause but the problem is to find something else in these circumstances that will work could cause means something quite different for firearms >> in my perfect world wave my want i get rid of the permission society there is still something similar that is primarily done by insurance companies profess started business i have to get insurance then they say now show us you built your house of with fireproof
materials. in fact, historic the government looks to the criteria to adopt its own criteria as a form of building permits so that would be my solution i do think there are market alternatives and they are more flexible. take zoning 100 years ago it was invented of irrational land-use planning. we will have the businesses over here the residence over their first of all, we've really captured through rent seeking people who wanted to get the racial minorities out of the white neighborhoods and that was blocked is still goes on today can and if he looks for a zoning map of manhattan today every bit as crazy as it ever was one century ago except the risen
difference all of the exemptions and grandfather and excuses those have been triggered by political decision and instead if you know somebody that. >> course the use of the insurance companies allow for the cross benefit in a rational way that impartially they are less able. >> we have time for one more question.
>> national service for public policy institute with the reference to ruling class. you seemed unclear by what you meant so could you tell by as briefly what you were referring to report is that something similar from a few years ago plaques on her. >> i guess what i mean is when you have a system of a permission system you have to look up the superiors and ask their permission to do your thing but over time it will colette's into a permanent underclass in those have to ask is a great example. kentucky but desisting
moving companies could sell or give theirs to others so typically it went to france and family members. so gradually there is a class of people and the more the storm turns into a provision and requirement so i think happens over time is they have racial distinctions in the old regime of france. >> >> one of the great revolutions he talks about